Posted on 03/30/2014 9:01:53 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Once the Cold War ended it didn't make much sense for neoconservatives and small-government conservatives to remain in a coalition. But breakups take time, and post-9/11 politics briefly created the illusion that Bill Kristol and George Will belong in the same political party. I am here to tell you that they do not, even if many people who identify as small-government conservatives still don't realize it.
There are kind, intellectually honest neoconservatives who genuinely believe that their hawkish, imperial approach to foreign policy would bring about a better world. Their notion of the good is still incompatible with small-government conservatism and libertarianism. And the darkest strains in neoconservatism—the zealous defenses of torturing prisoners, for example—are incompatible with the professed beliefs of a lot of social and religious conservatives, too. How could the GOP possibly serve the agendas of all these factions?
If neoconservatives got their way, as they did during George W. Bush's first term, the United States would spend more on its military and wage war in more countries. Neoconservatives still believe the Iraq War was a good idea. They'd have preferred to keep our troops in Afghanistan longer. They urged greater American involvement in Egypt and Libya. They wanted President Obama to intervene in Syria.
As they urge actions that would require spending tens of billions of additional dollars in the Middle East and North Africa, they also insist that NATO grant security guarantees to countries like Georgia, as if the sanctity of its borders is worth risking nuclear war. And .. they criticize the Obama Administration for not doing enough to "pivot toward Asia" in the Pacific.
Many small-government conservatives may be morally comfortable with interventionism. What they must realize is that neoconservatism's particular agenda would require dramatic tax increases, or significant borrowing
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
The GOP has melded with the dem party.
What we see today is a vacuum.
What fills that vacuum is really up in the air at this point.
This is pretty un-predictable right now.
I know one thing....I am not the GOPs bitch.
They best not take the small government, social issue voter
for granted.
It seems that is what they plan to do if thats is the case, I will do whatever
I can as an individual to collapse the system.
BTW, wasn't Ronald Reagan both a defense hawk (or "neocon," as this author would say)Neocons aren't strong on defense. They're strong on intervention, invasion, and interference. They could give a dang about defense so long as they get to go to other countries and fire up the machineguns.
Reagan didn’t “straddled both wings”, he was a full blown national defense hawk, the greatest in American history.
Reagan wasn’t an interventionist. The only “invasion” under Reagan was the two-day rescue operation in Grenada. Other than that, eight years without any wars, no invasions of other countries - but we still brought down the Soviet empire. Too bad George Bush didn’t learn from Reagan’s foreign policy.
the Iraq War was not just a good idea
We have Obama as president because of the Iraq war — because of its massive unpopularity after years of futile American spending (and sky-high deficits) and deaths of American troops (and destruction of the country of Iraq, giving rise to civil war and turning jihadists loose on the country.) People “thanked” the GOP for this disaster by electing the Democrats. Obamacare is part of the result.
Don’t forget the peacekeeping mission in Beiruit, or the assisted proxy wars in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, el Salvadore, Honduras, etc.
The Cold War was a completely different era where interventions could take place through proxies. Saying that Reagan wouldn’t have, under the actual circumstances at the time, invaded Afghanistan after 9-11 or Iraq after 15 years of all other options failing can’t be reasonably supported.
Oh, don’t forget el Dorado Canyon (and related military activities against Libya) and Preying Mantis, the latter being a quick 1 or 2 day war that effectively eliminated the Iranian Navy as a serious service, reducing it to ... speedboats.
America had a friendly relationship with Lebanon, the most westernized people in the near east in the 1930s, established before World War II. Reagan sent our forces in as a show of support; not to interfere with Lebanese institutions. When the show of support did not stabilize, but simply put American lives at risk, he pulled our forces out.
He did not have our Marines, acting as magnates for anti-American fire, patrolling the Iraqi dessert, for years after we had won a war with Iraq! There is a huge difference between a principled Conservative (Reagan) and Bush's neocon advisers.
The neocon foreign policy is simply a revival of the Leftwing foreign policy of Dean Rusk (1961-1969), and there was nothing Conservative about that. Even the war with the Communists in Viet Nam, was fought with our hands tied; while we toppled pro-Western leaders around the third world.
But freedom is free . . . right?
That invasion was conquering another country militarily, not knowing that shows how determined you are to play down the wonderfully aggressive President who is famous for his aggressive foreign policy and global interventions.
Reagan was fighting all over the globe and taking us to, and keeping us on the brink of war, with the half of the world that was already under communist domination.
Reagan pumped us up to 435,000 troops on the Soviet Empires European border, and we were practically in a state of war, and it was tense, but we approved of Reagan’s aggression, because we wanted to break this stalemate.
Reagan came in after the failings of the libertarian foreign policy of President Carter, when the Soviets absorbed country after country. On Reagan’s list to involve America in was, and was not limited to, Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, and Vietnam.
We again have a President who is libertarian on foreign policy and the military, he is shrinking the Army to a number of personnel that Reagan stationed in Europe alone.
Reagan PROJECTED strength, he knew that a libertarian foreign policy, meant the end of freedom and Western Civilization, and America.
No, the Iraq War has nothing to do with Obama.
We have Obama as President because the Democrats at the end of 2006 had control of the House and the Senate, and they wanted one of their own in the White House to push for socialism.
They knew that a “Black man” would sweep the black vote, in this case 90%, and the Liberals, which is exactly what happened.
“No, the Iraq War has nothing to do with Obama.”
You don’t read polls do you? Opposition to the Iraq war was the no. 1 issue driving voters to vote against the GOP in 2006 - when we lost the Congress — and in 2008, when we lost the White House
Exactly.
The author is a bit confused. Let's break it down.
If neoconservatives got their way, as they did during George W. Bush's first term, the United States would spend more on its military and wage war in more countries. Neoconservatives still believe the Iraq War was a good idea. They'd have preferred to keep our troops in Afghanistan longer.
Actually, 9/11 wrecks the author's curve. Iraq and Afghanistan were justified. The idea was not to keep our troops over there longer -- they should have been sent to win, win decisively and get the hell out, since combat troops are not nation builders and should not be employed as such. A true neo would want the troops out simply because they could then be deployed somewhere else.
They urged greater American involvement in Egypt and Libya. They wanted President Obama to intervene in Syria.
Military intervention is an option when national interest is threatened. It's very hard to make case for that in any of those three instances.
You are correct — I don’t bother with polls.
I said the war in Iraq was justified, but George W. Bush made the dreadful decisions believing the US could nation-build both in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is where he made fatal mistakes which destroyed the Republicans in the polls.
Once we got to Baghdad and a bit later Saddam was caught and executed, that was it - we should have left Iraq.
Afghanistan should have been treated like what it really is - a haven for criminals, in this case terrorists and drug smugglers. They should be treated the same way pirates are dealt with - quickly and severely; demand the Afghans hand over the terrorists or we hurt your nation very badly. Instead the fools decided to nation build. Now we have Karzai, who is thoroughly corrupt, and expanded poppy fields (from which some Americans are making lots of moolah). And we are still present there under Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.